Ten years ago, I had just moved to a new city and had not yet
started my new job. That's why I was able, as I unpacked my
household goods, to watch much of the ongoing OJ Simpson circus as
it was broadcast live on cable TV news channels. I saw the so-called
slow motion chase; I saw the footage of Simpson attending his
ex-wife's, and the bitter public statements from her family. And
even once I was working again, news concerning the pending trialand
then the trial itselfwas so pervasive I was still saturated
with information about it no matter when I chose to watch the news
or on which channel.

In the end, of course, Simpson was acquitted of all criminal
charges. Although the reaction to the not-guilty verdict was very
much along racial lines, most black people seemed to think that
Simpson really was not guilty. Even so, it seemed their celebration
was less for Mr. Simpson than it was for the triumph of a black man
over a system of justice that they saw as unfair to minority
defendants. (And in fairness to the jury so many thought had
rendered a decision based on some similar racial criteria, it found
Simpson not guilty in a classic case of reasonable doubt; several
jurors stepped forward after the trial and said that, had they been
privy to the information many of us watching television had seen,
they would have considered Simpson as guilty as many of us did.)

There were, of course, a few people interviewed on television or
quoted in newspapers who made it clear that they didn't care whether
Simpson was guilty or not. It was their contention that letting a
black man go free after a murder trial, even if he happened to be
guilty, was only just given the number of black men they believed
had been wrongly convicted in the past. But those opinions seemed to
be representative only of a very small minority, and as incendiary
as some found the idea at the time, both the opinions and the
objections to them have also faded into the past.

It's interesting to note that you rarely hear of OJ Simpson these
days. You may recall he was in the news in several legal matters in
the state of Florida where he now resides (he was suspected of
involvement in drugs or drug trafficking, but a search warrant
yielded no results; he was also accused of domestic violence against
his daughter in one instance and his girlfriend in another, but
those cases also came to nothing). Other than that, you hear very
little of a man who used to be very famous and much loved. Simpson
was once a valuable commercial commodity with his acting and
advertising career; now he's relegated to the occasional
retrospective story.

The reason that OJ Simpson isn't seen in Hertz commercials or in the
movies any more is simple: people won't buy tickets to see him, or
products he endorses. He may have been acquitted of murder (though
he was found liable for the deaths of two people in a subsequent
civil trial), but people in general don't like the man very much any
more. Maybe there's just enough doubt in people's minds that he may
very well have done the deed of which he was accused. Or maybe
people think there's no doubt at all, and that there's a murderer
running loose in Florida. Regardless, Mr. Simpson's past crimes
(domestic violence) and suspected crimes (murder) continue to haunt
him, even years after the major criminal case and its resolution.

I've offered this synopsis because the OJ Simpson case is one with
which virtually all of us are familiar, and because it illustrates a
troubling change in society. Just ten years ago, public censure was
something to be feared. It could threaten your livelihood and
destroy your reputation; it could result in the undermining of
friendships, and the loss of the goodwill of strangers. And because
of those things, it acted as something of a correcting influence on
some of the darker aspects of society without so much as a single
intrusive morality ordinance getting in the way. Of course, public
censure sometimes went too far and was occasionally erroneously
applied (even so, I suspect it was still more accurate than the
typical courtroom given the various legal maneuverings that now take
place more often than not). But in general, I look at a widespread
public censure as sort of a free-market judge, jury, and jail all in
one inexpensive and efficient package.

Now fast forward to more recent times and the criminal charges
against singer R. Kelly. Mr. Kelly has been charged with some 14
counts of child pornography in connection with a video tape that
allegedly shows him engaged in some kinky sexual behavior with a 14
year-old (keep in mind that Mr. Kelly is in his mid-30's). This
isn't the first time he's been charged with something like this, but
it does appear to be the most serious and with what is claimed to be
incontrovertible evidence. When the news came out, public censure
went into gear. Radio stations took his music off their play lists,
the music buying public didn't purchase his new album, and even
other singers said bad things about him. But not too very much
later, Mr. Kelly is already back on top with a forthcoming album, a
single climbing the charts, and in much demand as a co-writer of
songs.

The public, of course, is notoriously fickle. Perhaps they're
waiting for Mr. Kelly to be found guilty before they stop buying his
music. Maybe they actually believe in the premise that Mr. Kelly is
innocent until proven guilty (which would be a refreshing change if
it were actually true). I don't have any kind of an argument against
that position. But what I did find offensive in the extreme was
material contained in a story in a current issue of Entertainment
Weekly magazine (I subscribed only to help a local school with a
fundraising event, so give me a break). In that article, I learned
that there are people in the music industry who are actually saying
that it doesn't matter if R. Kelly is guilty, that his personal life
is not their concern.

Now while I agree wholeheartedly that one's personal life is,
indeed, one's own concern, I draw the lineI suspect just about
all of us do!where someone is being harmed, most especially where
that someone is a child. And a 35 year-old man having sexual
relations with a 14 year-old girl clearly involves harm to a child.
One person interviewed for the story compared R. Kelly's alleged
crimes with Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal, saying the
President's actions didn't affect his job and implying that whatever
R. Kelly has or has not done, his music is still good. (Someone
apparently needs reminding that Bill Clinton's sexual behavior with
Monica Lewinsky might not have been against the law, although
there's an arguable basis for sexual harassment there; it was his
perjury and obstruction of justice that got him in trouble with the
authorities. The sex only got him in trouble with his wife. If Mr.
Kelly did what authorities claim, he's going to be in a good deal of
trouble and with more than a few people.)

Another woman quoted in the Entertainment Weekly story was asked to
comment on the ongoing Michael Jackson matter in connection with the
support R. Kelly is receiving. Her reply as to the difference in the
public reaction offered these two men? Michael Jackson doesn't have
a hit record. Meanwhile, a writer who knows Kelly says that she's
aware of people who think R. Kelly really is the man on the video
tape, but they don't think what he was doing was wrong, or least
wasn't that wrong.

And so we come to this: Ten years ago, a black man loses virtually
everythinghis reputation, most of his money and belongings, and
his good relationship with the American publicdespite having been
acquitted of the crime he was accused of committing. Today, a black
man is as famous and popular as ever, and people are saying they
don't care if he's guilty, that in fact his guilt or innocence is
none of their business ( the NAACP actually nominated R. Kelly for
an Image Award in the midst of all of his legal troubles, which is
meaningful in and of itself). And this willingness to ignore
wrongdoing apparently comes almost solely from the fact that the
accused happens to be both famous and producing a product currently
in demand.

This is not a commentary about black performers and the support they
do or do not get from black Americans. These are simply some very
famous cases which are comparable because the men involved are all
black, talented, and areor weremuch beloved of black and white
audiences alike. Instead this is a comment on how society itself
seems to have changed in a very short time, and much for the worse.

OJ Simpson was ostracized by many, and is still largely ignored by
most of us despite an acquittal almost ten years ago. Even today,
Michael Jackson doesn't seem to be getting much overt public support
from any particular contingent. But remember that he hasn't had a
hit in some time, and let's face it: he's odd. At the same time, R.
Kelly is being welcomed with open arms by radio stations and concert
managers, record companies, and other performers because he's making
money for them; he's close to the hearts of a wide audience because
his music happens to be what they like at the moment.

I don't resent R. Kelly's successes even as he awaits trial. And if
Michael Jackson were to suddenly come up with a runaway hit, I
wouldn't resent that, either. Neither man has been found guilty of
anything; both are free to go about their business until their
trialsand afterward if they're acquitted. What I do find both
illuminating and sickening is the difference in the public treatment
of these two men based only on what we can still get from them, and
the willingness of some to forgive, forget, or even ignore all
together almost anything as long as they're still getting what they
want.

In directly comparing these men and their criminal cases, it seems
obvious that the public has recently determined that, as long it
gets what it wants, it no longer cares about "personal" behavior
(although it must be acknowledged that we're considering murder in
the Simpson matter and "only" sexual abuse of children in the latter
two cases). It looks like we don't care any more even when others
are harmed. We just want what we want, whether it's entertainment or
profits. And we apparently will take it at any price (as long, I
suppose, as we're not personally doing the paying). Perhaps society
should be indicted along with Michael Jackson and R. Kelly. As a
group, we're clearly suffering some of the same problems with
conscience these two men are alleged to have with theirs.